An appellate court on Friday overturned a federal trial judge’s ruling that probable cause existed to find Trump administration officials in contempt of court for allegedly defying the judge’s order to halt deportation flights to El Salvador. In a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia sided with the administration in ending District Judge James Boasberg’s contempt inquiry.
Boasberg had barred the removal of purported members of Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang to a prison in El Salvador. He issued an oral order to turn around planes bound for El Salvador, but the flights continued nevertheless.
Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.
Point phone camera here
Bondi praises court’s decision
In a post on X, Attorney General Pam Bondi called the court’s decision to allow President Trump to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport undocumented immigrants a “MAJOR victory.”
“The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed what we’ve argued for months: Judge Boasberg’s attempt to sanction the government for deporting criminal-alien terrorists was a ‘clear abuse of discretion’ — failed judicial overreach at its worst,” Bondi wrote.
Judges raise concern about judicial overreach
In their decision, the appellate judges expressed deep concerns about the concentration of power in Boasberg’s hands during the contempt of court proceedings.
“The district court’s order raises troubling questions about judicial control over core executive functions like the conduct of foreign policy and the prosecution of criminal offenses,” Judge Gregory Katsas wrote in a concurring opinion. “And it implicates an unsettled issue whether the judiciary may impose criminal contempt for violating injunctions entered without jurisdiction.”
Rao: Boasberg lacked authority
In a separate concurring opinion, Judge Neomi Rao called Boasberg’s decision “egregious.” She said he couldn’t legally continue contempt proceedings because the Supreme Court had already erased the ruling those proceedings were based on in April.
“The purpose and effect of this preliminary order is to compel the government to exercise its foreign affairs powers to assert custody of the removed gang members,” Rao wrote. “The district court acknowledged that it can no longer coerce this action through civil contempt because its order was vacated by the Supreme Court.”
Dissent argues contempt power remains
Judge Cornelia Pillard dissented, arguing the district court still has the clear legal power to find that criminal contempt may have occurred.
“The district court’s authority to find probable cause that criminal contempt occurred is well established, and it is undiminished by the Supreme Court’s holding—after the potentially contemptuous action—that venue of plaintiffs’ habeas claims lay in Texas, not here,” Pillard wrote.
Trump’s use of Alien Enemies Act central to case
The main issue at the center of this case is whether Trump had the legal authority to apply a law from the 1700s, known as the Alien Enemies Act, to deport immigrants without a court hearing.
In March, the Trump administration began deporting alleged Tren de Aragua gang members to El Salvador’s Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or Terrorism Confinement Center, arguing they had “invaded” the United States during the Biden administration.
Boasberg blocked the deportations and ordered the Trump administration to return the deportation flights, which had landed in Honduras and El Salvador. On Monday, April 7, the Supreme Court overturned Boasberg’s ruling due to procedural errors but declared that detainees have a right to due process.
